Top
130°

Are Gamers to Blame for the Rise of Microtransactions?

Companies have seen close to a billion dollars per year in microtransaction in 2016 and 2017 and we are more than likely to see those numbers rise again by the end of 2018. That means gamers are buying more and more microtransactions year on year, so are gamers the ones to blame?

Read Full Story >>
deadpixelsonline.com
The story is too old to be commented.
DivineAssault 224d ago

Yes because they keep buying all that stuff..

InKnight7s222d ago

Stuff????
Its garbage since Activision selling these maps and then years later start selling packs.

81BX223d ago

If it keeps game prices down... then idc

Zabatsu223d ago

Lol, right - and North Korea will bring world peace. That is the excuse greedy companies have, to be able to justify these methods. MT is nothing short of the ultimate form of greed.

Pro_TactX222d ago

81BX has a point actually. The price of games has not kept up with inflation. Games are cheaper now than they ever have been, despite having significantly higher development costs.

New NES games were $29.99 in 1985. That’s over $70 today, yet new games are released at $59.99.

Ittoittosai222d ago

@pro_tactx

You defendists keep bring up inflation. You then ignore the cost reductions that have happened in the logistics of delivering games and the increase in the gaming audience.

Then there is the miss information you just passed about the price of NES games in the 80's. NES games generally cost between 45-60$ in the 80's in the 90's the price settled around generally 50$ with some depending on the game were MSRP of 99$ like games with the FX chip and thats why the carts prices varied so wildly because the FX games at 99$ had extra chips and PCB inside the cart. The price for games began to stablize because of CDs. Cds even with the case whether jewel or dvd style have less plastic and material than a cart. Thus the 60$ price tag. Games dont cost 60$ anymore they havent for some time. Now if you want the season pass and extra this or that its a tiered system 60$ for the base game usually 70 80 hell some sports games have 140$ versions and still have MT in them. Now add to that in 1985 gaming was around a 1 billion dollar a year business and today its the largest entertainment medium ever at 79 billion a year and 60$ is still profitable especially when you take into account all PC games are sold digitally and more and more console gaming is moving that direction as well games can still be pretty profitable at a 60$ price point.

Next marketing budgets need to be redesigned and scaled back. When you look at a game like destiny most of the 500 million dollars spent on that game was the marketing, anyone whose played it can tell you that. Its not the consumers fault or responsibility to shouldered the missteps and irresponsible spending and lack of management the devs, pubs and creators make. MT are about greed, making every last cent possible trying to leave no money in your wallet thats greed not capitalism.

Lastly businesses and especially American businesses have lost sight of what success is. In the 80's selling 500k units was a smash hit now if something doesnt sell 10 million it preformed disappointingly. It used to be success was making 20% ROI now they considered 20% failure, if you're not making sometimes double the investment back then its a failure, that is simply greed and nothing else. Spin how you want 60$ is still plenty for gaming companies to make money.

yomfweeee222d ago

@ittoit, i think you're focusing a bit to much on just the media cost. Games now a day cost 10s or 100+ million to develop. That's the biggest part. MT help with that cost.

Season Pass is extra content. People always act like base games nowadays are shorter than in the past and then they make you pay more for everything. Wrong. Games are longer than they used to be, even without the SP. SP is extra content and there's no reason you shouldn't pay for it.

UltraNova223d ago

I sincerely hope that you do not believe that, for the sake of everyone.

81BX222d ago (Edited 222d ago )

The funny part is you think by purchasing a game and not buying MTS you are doing something. Mark my words is MTS go away the price of games will rise that is a fact!

_-EDMIX-_223d ago

The only people to blame regarding microtransaction content are the companies that are creating it.

We still have an Economy based on supply and demand and at the end of the day these users are buying enough microtransactions to justify their existence but that doesn't actually mean that every single company in gaming is going to do this practice, but I think you guys might need to get used to that users exist that don't mind purchasing this content.

I would argue the biggest topic is microtransactions altering content to try to manipulate a need for their existence ie trying to make a game purposely harder to try to pretend that microtransactions are necessary.

I would argue that is the biggest topic at hand not necessarily the existence of the microtransaction itself because how that is actually used varies greatly.

I mean based on that logic The Witcher 3 should be bashed for having microtransactions... right?

Cobra951222d ago

Great post on this subject. The disagrees other than my upvote would baffle me if this were any other site. My only issue is calling the two TW3 DLCs "microtransactions". I think the headline question refers to that blight that burst into the scene with horse armor. Bona fide game expansions have been in the picture for a long time, and the TW3 DLCs certainly fit that mold.

_-EDMIX-_222d ago

Thank you and my point of bringing up the Witcher 3 is all the free microtransactions that were given not necessarily the expansions.

I want people to understand that they would not actually hate The Witcher 3 for having microtransactions because they were free in the first place which actually shows that this is not really an issue because it exists it sounding like it's an issue because of how it's being used because for the most part the free microtransactions for The Witcher 3 were praised by multiple Gamers no one was saying they hated the concept.

So I think people need to be specific on what they mean regarding microtransactions because I believe the term is too broad for it to fit blanket statements. Not enough focus is put on the abuse of it , too much focus is actually put on its existence in general.

Derceto223d ago

Difficult question to answer.

If "gamers" (and I use that term loosely in this case) were to have willpower greater than that of a spoiled child, and "not" invest in this trash, then pubs would obviously have no ability to make money off them.

I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

TheDriz223d ago (Edited 223d ago )

I don’t like micro transactions but I also haven’t bought dlc or anything like that. I play a lot of games and unless it becomes one of my all timers I usually just play the base game and move on. I’m not a multiplayer person. I don’t participate and they don’t ruin games for me. I wasn’t gonna buy the cool outfit or second save slot regardless so you can put em there for people that want them. I haven’t felt like I’m missing out when I pass on dlc or mts. I got too many fun games to play to worry about a second character or new level in a game I’ve already beaten.

_-EDMIX-_223d ago

Agreed.

So long as it's not actually affecting my game I don't actually care.

NotoriousWhiz222d ago

For the most part, I agree with you. I generally don't buy DLC nor do I buy micro transactions. In some cases, they're basically the same thing. Cosmetic DLC vs micro transactions, what's the difference? One is earnable in game, the other isn't.

Show all comments (27)
The story is too old to be commented.